
A 



C 



CX/\/i/JLA/ 



Ql . T)1lZsu>Kro^Ji 






L,xV\- 



'^0, \'=tZ% 




..>^ 



■V^. 




Class F(=>S.^ 






SPEECH 

OF 

HON. JAMES A: "STEWART, 

OF MARYLAND, ^ 

ON THK 

ADMISSION OF KA^NSA^S. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 20, 1868. 

The House being in Committee of the AVhole on the state of the Union — 

Mr. STEWART said: 

Mr. Chairman: This Kansas question is important in itself. It is also connected, in 
the course of the arguments pursued here, with many other considerations which give to it 
an importance that is not ordinarily bestowed on questions coming up for decision by the 
Congress of the United States. I desire, before the vote be taken on the question of the 
admission of Kansas into' the Union, to present ray views upon the subject. I am glad, 
therefore, that 1 now have the opportunity to explain to this body, to the people whom I 
have the honor to represent, and to the country, if you please, the reasons which will con- 
trol me in the vote which I propose to give when the question comes up legitimately. 

I have the honor to represent, in part, the State of JMaryhmd. The district which I rep- 
resent is not affected by many of the considerations whici> control other sections. It is a 
quiet, beautiful section of country. All that the people there desire, in the movements of 
this great Government, is, that it will keep within constitutional limits: that the rights of 

all sections may be preserved ; that aggression shall not be allowed from any quarter 

neither from the South upon the North, nor from the North upon the South — but that the 
Government may move along in the path prescribed for it by the great charter that holds 
together the liberties of the people of this countrj'. 

Now, sir, Kansas has applied for admission into this Union. I take it for granted — be- 
cause, I believe, it has not been questioned or denied from any quarter — that it is the will 
of the people of that unfortunate Territory that Kansas maybe incorporated into the Union 
as one of the States. 

The only question that embarrasses, is as to the method — the modim operatidi, if you 
please. \Vell, sir, what is to be done? How are we to act? We are obliged either to ad- 
mit Kansas or to reject her. It has been said that fraud exists, and has existed, in the 
proceedings of Kansas. Well, sir, we are obliged to affirm or disaffirm it. If we reject her, 
we take the responsibility of saying that there have been such frauds, such malpractices, 
in the proceedings of Kansas, as to justify us in refusing to admit her into the Union. I 
present this view to the gentlemen who are willing to assume the responsibility of refusin<» 
to admit Kansas into the^Union. There is no dodging the question. We must either, by 
voting for the admission of Kansas, affirm the regularity and correctness of the proceedings 
there, or, by voting against her, affirm that such frauds and irregularities have existed, and 
do exist, as justify us in rejecting her. 

Now, I ask the men who go for law and order, for regularity in the movements of this 
Government in all its dependencies, has anything existed in the proceedings of the Terri- 
tory of Kansas sufficient to justify us in refusing her admission ? I go back to the election 
of her first Legislature. Who had the right to decide who were the legally-elected mem- 
bers of that Legislature? That Territorial Legislature had the right to decide for itself 
upon all questions of contested elections, and no outside authority could interfere. We 
have the authority of the distinguished gentleman who was architect of the organic act of 
that Territory, that the proceedings of that Legislature were regular and legal ; that the 
Territorial Legislature elected in March, 1855, was in this respect unexceptionsible. And 
I think the authority of that gentleman is conclusive upon that point so far. 

To follow up these proceedings, you find the people of Kansas in convention assembled. 
In deciding upon the regularity of this body, you must look at its origin, and take it in all 
its stages. I ask gentlemen who are opposed to the admission of Kansas into the i nion, at 
what period of the proceedings of that body were fatal irregularities ? The first Legislature. 
I have shown, was regular and legal. They decided in relation to the election, returns, and 
qualifications of their own members. Who had the right to determine in regard to 
the legality of the elections of the members of the convention? Why, the. convention 
itself. It would be a gross usurpation for the Congress of the United States to under- 

McGiLL. print. 



Sss- 



take to decide who were the legally-elected members of that couvention. They had the 
right to decide the question for themselves. They did decide it. They adopted a consti- 
tution. How does that constitution appear .here for our action upon it? The President of 
the United States, by the request of the president of that couvetition, has sent his message 
to the House of Representatives, and to the Senate of the United States, conveying intelli- 
gence to us that this constitution has been adopted by the State or Territory of Kansas. 
We have the authority of the Administration, therefore, so far as the facts were in its pos- 
session, tlfcit the proceedings have been regurnr. and that the constitution here presented is 
such as properly to justify us in admitting the State. 

Now, the question which any plain common-sense man would naturally ask is, what 
interest had the President of the United States in recommending the admission of Kansas 
under this constitution? What interest h.ad the members of his Cabinet? Why do they 
recommend to the ("ongress of the United States the admission of Kansas under this consti- 
tution ? Has Mr. Buchanan any personal object to accomplish ? It has been announced by 
himself, it has been reiterated by his friends, that having reached the highest point of his 
earthly desires, h<^ is no longer before the country for any additional honors, fuither than 
may be bestowed in the fair discharge of his duty. The desire of his ambition, I suppose, 
is accomplished, and he is not a candidate for re-election. Here, then, is the President of 
the United States, entirely disinterested in his motives, coming from the northern State of 
Pennsylvania, recommending the admission of Kansas. I speak with no degree of deference 
to the opinion of Mr. Buchanan more than I would of any other man under like circum- 
stances, occupying a similar position. I think his opinion, certainly, in this view, is enti- 
tled to some consideration. 

But if gentlemen attempt to set aside the proceedings of the Territorial Legislature as 
illegal, what comes of the legislation, which is the work of that body? Marriages have 
been solemnized, estates have been administered, under laws enacted by that Legislature. 
Is there any member of this House, I do not cnre to what party he belongs, who will under- 
take to say that the whole proceedings which have taken place under the authority of the 
government of that unfortunate Territory are illegal ? Oh no, I nppreltend not. 

But we are met with two classes of objectors. One class — the Black Kepublicans — affirm 
that the whole government was founded in fraud; that the public sentiment there was over- 
ruled or perverted by border ruffianism from Missouri — ■ — 

Mr. HUGHES. I ask the gentleman from Maryland to yield the floor for a moment. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. sir. 

Mr. HUGHES. I understand my colleague [Mr. Kilgoke] to represent himself to the 
House as an old Whig, and as standing upon the platform of Henry Clay. I wish merely 
to road what he has heretofore said in reference to the fugitive slave law, a'inensure with 
which I believe Henry Clay had some connection, in order that it may be understood what 
kind of an old Whig he is. I read from the debates of the Indiana constitutional conven- 
tion. 

" In the discussion of the propviety of referring; this section, no (rentleman had as yet ticen found -wiUinc; to 
take upon himself the advocMcy of the odious fugitive slave law, which, since its r^ent passage, liad created so 
much excitement, and upon which, in connection with this section, he desired to speak briefly. 

" lie would remark here that lie did not wish to be misunderstood in wh.it he should have to say upon this 
subject of the fugitive slave Ijill, so intimately connected with the .section then under consideration, lie was 
not in favor'of repudiating; the fugitive slave law while it remained on their national statute-book. Black and 
odious as it was, he had no objection to its enforcement, provided the ofKcers of justice could carry into execu- 
tion its provisions. The priniiple of the bill— the recnpture of the slave" by the master— he would not contro- 
vert; it was the details of it that were odious in his estimation. It would be the proudest hour in his life, if ho 
should have to surrender his property and personal liberty by a refusal to obey tlie mandates of an officer who 
should attempt, in tliis land of freedom, to carry out those details. While he w.as willinu. as he before said, to 
see the law carrieil out, if it could be — altbouu'h he would not himself assist in its execution — he hoped no gen- 
tleman of any party would, durinj their deliberations here, Iwcome the advocate of so odious a measure. He 
w IS no Abolitioni.st. He was under as little oblisration to that party as any prentleman on that floor; but while 
he repudiated all connection or fraternity whatever with that class of their fellow-citizens, so far as their pecu- 
liar action was concerned, he must be permitted to enter his protest a^rainst the doctrine that the slaveholders 
of Kentucky and other Southern States had the riiiht to use the freemen of Indiana like blood-hounds to 
catch their slaves." 

/ 
I merely read this in ord>r that it may go before the world in connection with the state- 
ment of my colleague, that he speaks as national Whig. I will not trespass upon the in- 
dulgence of the gentleman from Maryland, or I could strengthen the point which I make 
against my colleague by some other and stronger proofs. 

One word more. I understand my colleague to say that he is opposed to the admission 
of Kansas as a slave State because of the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Here is 
the resolution of the P.epublican State convention of Indiana, of ISSO, of which my col- 
league was a member, and upon which his party made the canvass of 1856 : 

" Hatolved, That we will resist, by all proper means, the admission of any slave State into this Union formed 
out of the territori(!S secured to freedom by the Missouri compromise, or ot/ierwise." 

Mr. KILGORE. Will the gentleman from Maryland permit me to nsk my colleague a 
<)uestion ? 

Mr. STEWART, of .M«rvlnnd. (^ertainly. 



Mr. KILOORE. Una not my colleague said, ever since the coraniericement of thio 
gession, that the Dred Scott decisioQ was not the law, and that nobody could pretend that 
it was tho law? 

Mr. HUGHES. I do not think that I ever uttered such a sentiment in my life. 

Mr. KILGORE. At no time? 

Mr. HUGHES. I do not think I ever did at anytime. I know that the gentleman's 
party cliarged me, during the last canvass, as being in favor of white slavery. They made 
the charge distinctly. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I presume, Mr. Chairman, it is best for me to go on with 
my remarks, and these gentlemen can adjust their dispute in their own way when they get 
home, subject only to the Constitution of the United .'"tates. [Laughter.] 

Now, sir, 1 repeat, in reference to the admission of Kansas, we are met with two objec- 
tions. I understand that the gentlemen who follow the fortunes of the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois, [.Judge Douglas,] take the ground that everything was regular in 
the proceedings in Kansas, or sufficiently' so as not to authorize any legitimate complaint ; 
but they say that this constitution has not been submitted to the people, or is not r.n em- 
bodiment of the will of the people. The other objectors take the ground that the whole 
government in Kansas was founded in fraud. We are confronted, therefore, with these 
two objections. 

AVell, sir, in relation to the admission of a State into the Union, we find under the Con- 
stitution of the United States that Congress has the power to admit new States. I hold 
that it is not the primary consideration whether a people proposing to be admitted have a 
constitution or not. The great question here is whether we shall admit Kansas into the 
Union. The Constitution of the United States does not say that when a State is admitted 
into the Union that she shall have a constitution ; and you do not find in the clause author- 
izing Congress to admit new States, anything said about a form of government. In an- 
other clause you find the language, that the United States shall guaranty to every State a 
republican form of government. It is not Congress, but the United Stales. It does not 
say that the United Slates shall admit new States into the Union, and the Congress shall 
guaranty the States a republican form of government, but that Congress shall admit new 
States, and the United States shall guaranty to the States republican forms of government. 
Now, when Kansas comes here is she compelled, as a preliminary, to have a republican 
form of government? How can you guaranty this until she is in ? It seems to me to be 
untenable to require that when a State comes in she should necessaiily have a republican 
form of government, because she must first be admitted as a State before you can guaranty 
to her a republican form of government. The word "guaranty" is one of peculiar import. 
It does not say that the State shall have a republican form of government before admission : 
but that the United States shall guaranty a republican form of government. Rhode Island 
came into the Union under the British charter; and she did not determine for a considera- 
ble time after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, whether she would 
come into the Union or not. When she came in no question was asked as to her constitu- 
tion. She had not a republican constitution when she came into the Union, according to 
our theory. She had not a constitution of that form, because she was living under 
the charter which she had derived from King Charles 11. I therefore hold that it is 
not absolutely material whether a State, when she comes into the Union, has a con- 
stitution or not. She m.ay, in fact, have a republican form of government without a 
constitution. She may settle all her proceedings in mass convention or in a Legislative 
Assembly. 

Now, sir. States which have come into the Union have been admitted in different ways. 
There is no particular plan or method required. Some have been admitted by joint reso- 
lution, as was the case with Indiana. Some have been introduced by an act of Congress, 
express and direct, and others have been admitted by necessary implication. Ohio was 
never admitted formally by an act of Congress ; but Congress, in the passage of a law, 
recognized her by reciting in the act, substantially, that she was in the Union. 

Vermont was the first new State admitted into the Union, which occurred on the ISth of 
February, 1791. Congress required no constitution, and none was submitted by her. 

Kentucky, being the second new State, was admitted on the 1st of June, 1792. Her 
constitution was never submitted to Congress. 

Tennessee was the third new State. She formed her constitution the 6th of February. 
1796, and the same was submitted to Congress. 

Ohio was the next. Having formed her constitution on the 29th of November, 1802, in 
February, 1808, an act of Congress was passed providing for the due execution of the laws 
of the United States within the State of Ohio, and merely reciting that she had become a 
State of the Union. Congress had nothing to do with her Constitution, and she became a 
State by necessary implication, as I have before stated. 

Louisiana, on the 7th of April, 1812, was admitted into the Union by act of Congress. 

Indiana came in on the 11th December, 1816, by a joint resolution, as before mentioned, 
having lulopted her constitnt.ioT) on the 20t]i June, 1816. The State of Rhode Island con- 



tinued for a long time without any constitution, having for her form of governmeut siniplj 
the charter from King Charles II., and for a considerable period declined to adopt the 
Federal Constitution, and, when she came in, no quettion was made as to the character of 
her government. General Washington, President of the United States, on the 1st of June, 
1790, congratulated Congress upon the introduction of Rhode Island iu the following 
manner : 

United States, Jiiui'. 1, 1790. 
Gentlemen nf the Senate and, Iloiixe of Rfpresentatives : HaTinir receivfid official informiition of the accession of 
the State of Ilhode Island and Providence Plantations to the Constitution of the United States, I take the 
earliest opportunity of communicating the same to }'ou, with my congratulations on this happy event, which 
unites under the (Jeneral Government all the States which were orijjin.iUy confederated ; and have directed my 
secretary to lay before you a copy of the letter of the president of the convention of the State of Khode Islaud 
to the President of the United States. GKOKGK WASHINGTON. 

It will be observed that it was the president of the convention that communicated with 
President Washington, as the president of the Kansas convention now, I will remark to 
the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Clark.] 

There does not appear to have been much consideration as to the character of the con- 
stitutions of the new States, or whether they had any or not, or as to the method of ad- 
mission, until Missouri made her application. She was admitted, after long and angry 
controver.sy, and a restriction was adopted as to the admission of any future State lying 
nortn of 36° 30'', undertaking to prohibit the introduction of slavery. This was in restraint 
of their indefeasible right under the Constitution, producing inequality of privilege. After 
an experience of thirty j'ears it was discovered to have no solid foundation, and was 
ignored by the general adjustment of 1850, and repealed formally by the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act of 1854, and pronounced to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the Dred Scott case. In its place, the policy was inaugurated to submit 
the settlement of the slavery question, as indeed all other domestic questions, to the re-, 
spective people of each Territory, when they regularly undertook to establish St.ite govern- 
ments. This plan fully maintained the equality of the States, and disposed of the slavery 
question, fairly, and withnut subjecting any State or section to disparagement or injustice. 

We find, then, from the history of the Government and from precedent, that there has been 
no particular form of admission adopted. Some have been ufihered in by act of Congress, 
one by joint resolution, and another by necessary implication. I hold, therefore, that this 
main question which is to govern Congress w^hen they undertake to admit a new State into 
the Union is, not to assume with great nicety to look into and see what sort of a constitu- 
tion she has. It is not to be expected that these territorial governments will settle all mat- 
ters with the same precision as you would solve a mathematical proposition. The leading 
inquiries are, have they sufficient numbers and the ability to assume and maintain an' inde- 
pendent government? If they have, you admit them into tlie Union. As to the question 
whether they have a constitution or not, it is secondary and subordinate, and is a matter more 
of form than substance. In the case of Rhode Island, about the Dorr rebellion, as it was 
called, before the Supreme Court, there being a dispute as to which government had the 
control, the old or the new, it was decided to be a political question, and they would not, 
per se, undertake to settle it. The President and the Congress of the United States, under 
some circumstances, have to decide such questions. It wjjuld seem we take cognizance of 
the case not so mtich with the view to ascertain -whether a State has a republican govern- 
ment as to identify the government, de facto. 

In the discussion of this question I have heard a great deal said in regard to slavery. 
Why, sir, there is a great deal of humbug and flummery uow-a-days. Why should the North 
require any restriction ? Suppose you strike out from the constitution of every northern 
State all restrictions upon this subject — what would it amount to ? Would there be any 
slaves there to disturb some conscientious nerves ? I apprehend not. Take Pennsylvania 
or Ohio, neighboring States, and strike out the restriction from their constitutions and 
laws, and in all probability you will have no more slaves in those States than you have now 
under the restriction. The people of the South are obliged, in their section of the country, 
to have and employ such servants as may be had where slavery exists. It suits our social 
institutions, and the temper of our people, and the necessity of the case, to do so. Now, I 
submit to our friends upon the other side of the House, if the people from the south choose 
to go into northern States with their families for pleasure, amusement, or other cause, why 
should they not be permitted to take their necessary servants with them, and be treated 
hospitably, in the same manner as northern men go into southern States with their fam- 
ilies and domestics ? The law of politeness and gentility recommends this in a Government 
like ours, founded as it was in an era when slavery existed in every State of the Union; 
and I submit to the other side of the House whether they are not only violating the Con- 
K'Jtution of the United States in its letter and spirit, but putting at defiance all those prin- 
ciples and rules of good breeding, civility, and courtesy, justly due from one freeman to 
Another ? 

Why, Mr. Chairman, this is not so much a question of slavery and anti-slavery, so far an 
this Kansas matter Ib concerned, as it is of government or no governinont — wbether wo aro 



to have anircliy or the supreiuacy of law. Do uot gentlemen concede that Cpngress haw the 
power to admit new States into (he Union ? No oho disputes this proposition. AVeli, sup- 
pose that, riftht or wrong, per fas aid nefas, Kansas is. admitted: is not that a U-Kitimaie 
decision ? Can an appeal be taken from it ? Will not that proceeding he recognized ? or 
will you make war upon the action of Congress as you have made w.ar upon the Legislature 
of Kansas, and upon the constitutional convention? If Congress thinks proper, in the ex- 
ercise of its delegated power, to admit Kansas, will you make war upon Congress, and say 
that Congress acted •without authority ? Will you uot be bound and controlled by its action? 
But. sir, the opiionents of this measure have, in the progress of the debate, made war 
upon all the institutions of the countr}-. They have made war upon Judge Leoompte, the 
chief justice ot Kansas, a pure, upright, and accomplished judge, who has discharged all 
his duties with signal ability and fidelity under most difficult and embarrassing circumstan- 
ces. Ou what ground has he been assailed '/ When you undertake to bring accusations 
.•igainst a judge, you ought to be prepared with proof to substantiate them. Where is the 
evidence here ? JS'one upon the face of the earth, but senseless clamor and insane abuse. 
It is an assault, not only on the Legislature and convention of Kansas, but on the judicial 
authority which derives its power from the Federal Government. 

Is it not the same with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States — the li'ghesr 
judicial tribunal known to our Ggvernment? Does that high court command the re.-pect of 
the oppo)ients of this measure ? Not at all. The same sort of assault is made upon that 
court. And I may here make a similar remark in regard to the members of that uoiirt that 
I have advanced in reference to ]\lr. Buchanan, when I said that Mr. Buchanan, now verging 
on threescore and ten, might be considered disinterested. Who compose die Supreme 
Court? Go into that tribunal and inquire what motives could actuate the men who wear 
the judicial ermine there, fi-om the Chief Justice down. There is the honorable Roger B. 
Taney, the Chief Justice, a man of moralitj^ of religion, of unimpeachable character. 
What motive has he for deciding in favor of the South, against the North ? He is a man 
who must very soon, in accordance with the laws of nature, be called upon to have his 
actions below reviewed by the highest superhuman tribunal. What interest, I repeat, has 
he to decide this great question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Mis- 
souri compromise in favor of the South against the North ? None, none. Why then make 
such an assault on tlie Supreme Court? Look at the other Judges. Do they all come 
from the South ? Where was Judge Nelson ? Where Judge Grier? These are Northern 
gentlemen, representing, if you please, northern States, imbued, somewhat possibly, with 
the northern views. Did not they concur in the opinion of the court? The court wan 
agreed, with the exception of Judge McLean and Judge Curtis. Judge Curtis has since 
resigned his seat; and, at time of that decision, did not intend to remain ou the bench. 
Judge Mclean has been talked of for the Presidency. If I thought proper to speculate as 
to the motives of gentlemen. I might have a field for doing so. But I i^iall not undertake 
to impute improper motives to these Judges. I will not do it. But I will saj', consider the 
character of that court. See how tiie majority and how the minority decided You will 
find that the majority, consisting of gentlemen living in the North as well as in tlie South, 
adjudged this question without reg.ird to anything but the law and the Constitution appli- 
cable to its merits, with all becoming modesty and judicial propriety, and with distin- 
guished learning and ability. 

Hf)w has it been also in the State of Massachusetts? Look at the case of Judge Loring. 
There w.as a judge who, I am told by all who knew him, was perfectly incorruptible j a 
man pure ami undefiied. Has he not been swept by the besom of destruction, simply be- 
cause he performed his duty ? Alas ! alas, for Massachusetts ! I say, then, that this is a 
question involving grave considerations; whether we shall have a Government or no Gov- 
ernment ; whether law and order are to prevail, or this system of fanaticism from the 
North be permitted to run riot, to overturn the Supreme Court, upset all the hallowed 
institutions of the nation, and to inaugurate a reign of terror ? # 

But suppose 3'ou carry out your views, and emancipate, if you please, all the slaves of 
the South — what will be your condition? Whan you have made the constitutional guaran- 
tees of the Government as but a rope of sand, what will you have to protect you at the 
North from the very same -elements that now make war on the property in the slaves of the 
South ? You may have a system of agrarianism there, and everything wiil be settled, 
regardless of the rights of property, of the Constitution, and of the consecrated maxinriM 
of biw and order, by a wild and uncontrollable mob— popular sovereignty, if you please,^ 
\rith a vengeance. The very same elements that are now waging war on the ])roperty of 
the South will, when they cut loose from all wholesome restraints and restrictions, make 
war upon tJic conservative institutions of the North ; and then there will be no safety 
throughout the land— your Government, founded by youi- revolutionary f.-ithers, over- 
thrown, and madness and folly attempted in its stead. 

Now let me refer gentlemen of the North to the precedents set by their forefathers. How 
have they acted ? When did you hear anything from tiicm about the poor Indian or the 
ncjrro? ^Vho. f shonhl like to know, h.-is now the ovi^'inal, if not the best, right to the 



St 



Territory of Knnsfis — the border nifEan, ns you term bini. from Missouri, the emigrant 
from !Mas.«achusettfij or the poor, untutored Indian ? The policy now urped, on the part of 
northern men, tends, if cai-ricd out to its legi imate results, to equali/.e the two races — the 
black race and the white race — not to raise tlie blach man up, but to pull the white man 
down to the level of the negro. Plquality of races — that is the doctrine. Take the vene- 
rable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Gidbings,] wliom I desire to treat with no personal dis- 
respect, who has been here longer than any other member on this floor, .uid whom I 
recognize as the head of the Black Republican party — and I deal with his political princi- 
ples as I understand them. As 1 comprehend his speech, he considers the negro tlie equal 
of the white man, in natural and political rights, and just as estimable as the white man. 
I have heard no ground to the contrary taken by any other gentleman of that party, and I 
therefore place them all in the same category. 

Mr. CUIITIS. 1 hope the gentleman will not include the whole Republican party in that 
charge. I did not understand the gentleman from Ohio as taking that position. 

Mr. STEWART. I understood him so; and those of his party who did not except to it 
must be considered, in all fairness, I should think, as assenting to the proposition. 

Mr. CURTIS. The Republican party platform asserts no such thing, and assumes no 
such position. 

Mr. STEWART. I understood the gentleman from Ohio to take this position — and I 
heard no one on his side of the House take ground to the contrary — that, under the Decla- 
ration of Independence there is no difference between the white man and the negro. And 
until Ave find the Republican party repudiate that doctrine and place itself in a ditferent 
uosition, we have a right to consider thnt these are the views and policj- of that party. 

Mr. CURTIS. We agree with the Declaration of Independence nevertheless. The same 
doctrine was enunciated by Blackstone lifteen years before the Declaration of Indepeneence 
was written. 

Mr. STEWART. Do 1 understand, then, that you, do not consider the negro as being as 
good as the white man ? 

Mr. CURTIS. I do not consider negroes equal to white men in this country; but I. 
believe that they have all the natural rights of white men. 

Mr. STEWART. Do I understand the gentleman to s.ay that, under the Declaration of 
Independence, negroes can be citizens of the United .States? 

Mr. CURTIS. I did not say that they are not citizens of the United States; because, in 
some cases, they are citizens. 

Mr. STEWART. Then, if they are citizens, why not allow them to vote? 

Mr. CURTIS. I would not allow them to vote until they are capable of comprelicnding 
the duties of voters. 

Air. STEW,\RT. Well, then, do you recognize the equality between the negro and white 
man ? # 

Mr. CURTIS. I believe that they were created equal. 

Mr. STEWART. All men were -'created" equal! The Declaration of Independeuce 
does not say they were all born equiil. 

>Ir. CURTIS. It says they were created equal. 

Mr. STEWART. But it does not say they were born equal. [Laughtei.] Now, sir, the 
idea comes, perhaps, from the venerable gentleman fron^ Ohio, [Mr. Giudings:] but I 
choose to place all gentlemen on that side of the House in the same class, because the 
course pursued by them is tending to the same result. I mniiitiiin that the gentlemen upon 
the other side of the House, who are making war upon the South, are seeking to estublish 
the equality of the white and negro races in this country 

"Mr. HOWARD. I hope the gentleman will except me. ' 

Mr. CURTIS. We all wi.sh to be excepted. 

Mr. HUGHES. I would like to hear the opinion of the gentleman from Iowa ou that 
clause (ff the Declaration of Independence which complains that King George III. hud incited 
domestic insurrection in this country. 

Mr. CURTIJ?. I approve of the whole of the Declaration of Independence. 

Mr. STEWART. As you understand it, I suppose. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a clause in the Constitution of the United States, which provides 
that, when a slave shall have escaped into another State, he shall be given up. I under- 
stand the law passed, and repassed, if you please, requires property of that description to 
be delivered up. But, sir, neither the law nor the constitutional provision on which it is 
founded is regarded. I have heard gentlemen contend that slave property was the creature 
of local law, and that it doe« not exist outside of that. ^\ hy, sir, this verj' provision in the 
Constitution of the United States was intended to place it out.side and beyond that. The 
local authorities of Pennsylvania, for instance, may pass a law providing that when my 
horse escapes into that State he shall not be delivered up to me, but given to the linder ; 
but they cannot constitutionally pass a law which will prevent my slave from being delivered 
up. The restriction contained in the Constitution of the United States comes to my aid in 
such a oasn: nml no local law I'-in operate to »ny prejudice, ns is also reaffirmed by the 



autborily of the ISiipreuii' Ociuit of the Uiiitetl States. Tbo s.iiue principle ms to Much 
property is established by the British uuthoiities, except in the case of " Sonimersett," 
decided by Lord Mansfield, and has been by the English judges determined over and over 
again. ^Iruisfield's decision in the case of the uegro man "Somraersett" w;.s considered an 
exception to the current of the common lavr authorities by Judge Story himself. I main- 
tain, therefore, that slavery is recognized by the law of nations; and it is considered a vio- 
lation of the international law, when the property of a citizen of one government comes 
within the jurisdiction of another government, to deprive him of that property without some 
special local law against its introduction. To refuse to recognize the same principle in the 
intercourse between the States i.s not only an assault upon the South, but is a gross viola- 
tion of the Constitution, aqd against the settled law of the land. If there is no sttip put to 
it, we shall, in less than half a century, necessarily become a nation of agrarians, whicli. 
may He.aven in its infinite mercy prevent! If it should turn out that we. as a people, are 
destined to become incapable of self-government; if it results that, when our forefathers 
established a government, laying down distinctly rights that should not be violated, those 
rights are to be cloven down or spirited away by noisy clamor, then the will and power of 
the strongest must prevail, and we shall be launched into a boundless sea, without chart 
or compass. The South, in such a te i pest, will find terra firina as soon as the North. 

Now, sir, I beg leave to refer very briefly to what some of the States at the North have 
done in regard to such property; whicif 1 may well commend to the grateful remembrance 
of those who now undertake to represent that section. Some of them, whilst they have 
been very eager to place restrictions upon the right of sovereignty in their neighbors, have 
gone to great and extraurdinary lengths in the exercise of what they claim as their own 
peculiar and inalienable immunities. The State of New York, by a law passed the Slh of 
April, 1801, seems to have declared war against all strangers; Whether they designed the 
application to negroes alone, or to all, I am not able to say; probably to the former. The 
said law provides that if a stranger is entertained in the dwelling-house or out-house of any 
citizen for fifteen days without giving notice to the overseers of the poor, he shall pay a fine 
of five dollars. If such person continues above fortj' days, the justice may compel such 
.stranger to be conveyed frtiin constable to constable, until transtiortetl beyond the State; 
and if such persnn returns, the justice may direct him to be whipped by every constable 
into whose hands lie shall come ; if a man, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes ; and if a woman, 
not over twenty-five lashes ! 

The State of Vermont, on the lOtli of March, 1797, by a law, declared that every white 
citizen above the age of eighteen and under forty-five, should be enrolled. She seems by 
this to have excluded the negro — whether to exempt him par excellence, or discriminate 
against him as unworthy of citizenship, scarcely admits of question. By another act, passed 
November, 1801, her selectmen were empowered to re ovo from the State any persons who 
came there to reside; and if they returned without permission they were to be whipped, 
not exceeding ten stripes. I presume this must h.ive been intended for the free negroe.'* 
who were not citizens; white people would not be apt to travel that way, if they were 
included. 

New Hampshire, by ber act of 1808, provided that every white male citizen of the age of 
sixteen, and under forty, should be enrolled. I suppose, bv this, she hardly considered free 
negroes as citizens. If regarded as citizens, it w^uld appear unkind to deprive them of the 
same means of aggression and defense as her white citizens. 

Rhode Island, by one of ber statutes, authorized the town council to bind out to service, 
for two years, any free i egro or mulatto who kept a disorderly house. Another section of 
the same statute prohibited all persons keeping house in any town from entertaining any 
Indiiin, mulatto, or negro servant or slave, under a severe penalty. Another section de- 
clares that Indians, negroes, and mulatto servants or slaves, should not be absent at night 
after nine o'clock : and if found violating this provision, any justice of the peace is required 
to cause such servant or slave to be publicly whipped, by the constable, ten stripes. An- 
other law of that State declared that whosoever is suspected of trading with a servant or 
slave, and shall refuse to purge himself by oath, shall be adjudged guilty, and punished. 
No laws of the ."^outli, in regard to slaves, are equal in severity to this. 

Connecticut, by a law passed in 1796, provides thai whatsoever negro, mulatto, or Indian 
servant should be found wandering out of the bounds of the place to which they belong, 
^♦ithout a pass, is to be taken up. By another sectioti they are not to travel without a pass ; 
and every free person shall be punished by fine for buj'ing anything from a free negro, mu- 
latto, or Indian servant, &c. By the constitution of this same State, of the 15th Septem- 
ber, 1818, in the second section of the sixth article, it is provided that every white male 
citizen of the United States shall be an elector. Thus excluding negroes, mulattoes, and 
Indians. 

Massachusetts, by her law of the 6th March. 1788, prohibits negroes, with a few excep- 
tions, from remaining in the State for a longer time thaii two months ; and if found within 
the State after ten days' notice, shall be whipped; and if still refusing, whipped again, 
&c. She also, by her act of the ITjth .Tune, ,1705. provided that no person authoriued to 



tniirrr shall join in luai-riiigi* imy white pyrsoji >viili !i!i_j uejivo, Tmiiau, or tnulatlo. umler 
a heavy penalty, and the marriage is ieciared n nullity. 

In the oripimil constitution of Ohio, by the fourth iirticlc, none but white ma'e inhabi- 
tant'' iind the riirlit of suffrapre. 

The State of Indiana, shortly after her admission into the Union, passed a law declaring 
that no negro, mulatto, or Indian shall be a witness, except in pieas of the State ap;ainst 
ne.croes; mulattocs, or Indians, or in civil cases where they alone shall he parties. In the 
District of Columbia, under the amended mrt of incorporation, passed the loth of May. 
1820, it was declared that none but a free male white citizen could be mayor or aidermaii, 
and power was jriven to prescribe the terms upon which free negroes and mulattoes may 
reside in the city. By the twenty-third section of the bill of rights of the proposed State 
of Kansas, free negroes shall not be permitted to live in that State unJer any circum- 
stances. I do rot suppose they mean by this to kill any that niny be there, but, I take it, 
none are in the State. I believe a similar provision is in the Topeka State constitution. 

It wi'l be perceived, from several of the foregoing references, that t])e poor Indians are 
placed in the same category with the negroes and mulattoes. All the sympathy of the 
.Abolitionists seems, now-a-days, to be exhausted upon the negro, to the utter and inex- 
cusable neglect of the Indian. From all cotemporanoous liistory. tradition, or record, 
founded on constitutional or legal provisions, does any man in his sober senses believe that 
negroes, mulattoes, or Indians were ever designed to be citizens of the States or United 
States, and on a perfect equality with the white man ? — that our Government intended, for 
them, equal rights and privileges? 

In the beginning of the Government all the States were slaveholding. The Constitution 
and laws of the United States and of the several States demonstrate that Indians, negroes, 
and mulattoes have never been considered citizens. Thej- have !ieen excluded from voting, 
from serving in the militia, or from giving evidence against white peri-ons, North as well 
as South, East and West. If the Declaration of Independence was intended to embrace 
them, why were they not, by our revolutionary ancestors, freeil from slavery, emancip.-ited, 
and disenthralled? The n.aturalization law;- of 1802 restrict all .negroes from becoming 
naturalized, else black republicans of Ilayti might come over and become a part of our 
body-politic. I wonder if the Indians have not, upon natural principles, a better right in 
Kansas than the emigrants from Massachusetts or Missouri ? 

1 take it the Supreme Court of the United States, in their recent decision in the Dred 
Scott case, could not, without manifest disregard of all authority, have decided that negroes 
were citizens of the United States. They have only, judicially, vindicated the truth of 
history. The constitution which was established at Topeka, and which has been the 
bantlinr^ of our Black Eepiiblican friends, has a provision th.-it free negroes are not to come 
into tl;<5 State of Kansas. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the Topeka con.=titution 
contains a clause excluding negroes from the State of Kansas? ^ 

]\Ir. STEWAKT, of Maryland. I understand that it has such a provision.* 

^!r. BINGH.\M. I have examined that instrument since this charge has been made, 
and before : and I say that it does not contain any such provision. 

Mr. HUGHES. Let me set this mattei* right. The convention at the Big Springs, which 
initiated the Topeka movement, passed the following resolution: 

" Pe..<nlrffl. That it i'' tlie opinion of this convention that tho udniifKiou of free nesroes, or mulattoos. into the 
Territory, or future State, of Kansns, will be productive of evil amonR the people of Kansas. ,inj dHn'jemv.s to 
the institutions of our sister State ; and that we will oppose their adniissiou into tho Territory , or future State, 
of Kansas, now nnd forever."' 

In pursuance of that resolution, the proposition was submitted to a popular vote with 
the Topeka constitution, as to whether the first Legislature under that instrument should 
exclude free- negroes or not, and it was carried. But the provision is not expressly in the 
Topeka constitution. Still, the adoption of that constitution would have brought into 
legal existence a State Legi.slature bound to exclude free negroes. 

Mr. BINGHAM. And it never was. 

[Here the hammer fell.] 



* Mr. Stkwart refer."!, as authority, to the epeech of Jadpe PoianJ, to be found in the Appendix to Congres- 
Monal Olohe, first se.ssion Thirty-Fourth Consress. pages 3R7-3SS, where Jiifl4jo Dornns, iv>mn)enlin(; upon the 
memnria) or con.stitution presented by General Cass to the Senate, and known as the Toneka constitution, uses 
the following lanpuajie : 

" I hnve kept my eye on the history of that document, and the proceedings connected with it: and- it is well 
known t> the country that there was a clause, adopted by a separate vote of the people, and made a part of that 
constitution. makiuR it a duty of the Lesislature never to permit nejiroes ffree or slave! to enter the State of 
Kansas— a provision similar to the one in the constitution.s of Illinois nnd Indiana, and some otlier States, which 
have been so severely condemned nnd denounced by those who have become the special chami.ions of Kansas. 
J.ook into the constitution as they furnish it. and as the Senator from .Michijran has presenteil it here, and you 
will find that clause is suppressed. That important, material provision, is not to ')e found in the document 
whieb they brinK hi're. I know, from the history of the transaction, that if was voted in by a majority of the 
persons who voted for the adoption of the Kansas consi itirtion. Am 1 mistaken ? I a.sk. was it not adojited at 
the same election at whieh the constitution of the pretended State of Ratihas was a^lopted. as n part of the con- 
stitution?'' . 




^•*' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



016 089 347 3 # 



^^ . ^H 



